The operators of the newly built £14million waterpark were the subject of a winding up order from British Gas after Alpamare UK Limited encountered financial difficulties and ran up debts totalling nearly £3.4million.

The Scarborough & Whitby Tories profligacy with local taxpayer money, which effectively gave Benchmark an unsecured £9million loan, leaves the Scarborough Borough Council caught in a conundrum.

On the one hand SBC has a statutory duty to ensure that unlicensed premises do not trade illegally. It appears that the council have been ignoring this statutory duty since Alpamare agreed to the CVA on the 21st January 2019.

On the other hand, and if the council decides to carry out its statutory duty, Alpamare’s finances will be further affected and the waterpark may well have to close until they are granted a new premises license by the council.

The knock on effect of any potential waterpark closure will likely impinge upon the ability of Benchmark to repay the unsecured £9million loan the Scarborough & Whitby Tories gifted them.

Whatever the outcome you can be sure that we local taxpayers will end up footing the bill.

Open Letter concerning Chief Constable Winward charging the cost of her FBI reunion in Helsinki to North Yorkshire Police

Further to my article below, I write concerning Chief Constables Winward charging her membership of the FBI National Academy Alumni and her visit to Helsinki to attend an FBI reunion to North Yorkshire Police.

I feel sure you would agree that in these austere times, it is essential that North Yorkshire Police draws a line under its history of past excesses and abuses by Chief Police Officers described in my article. These abuses have gone on for too long and have cost the taxpayers of North Yorkshire hundreds of thousands of pounds in the time I have been covering North Yorkshire Police.

The furore over Chief Constable Sean Price’s Estonia conference demonstrates public resistance to foreign travel for vague, undefined training that is not relevant to their role. I believe it is important that the Chief Constable sets a personal example of commitment to value for money, integrity, stringent financial control and financial probity. Particularly as you are now trying to obtain a major increase in the Community Charge to finance policing in North Yorkshire. It seems wrong to me that Chief Constable Winward is asking for an increase of £30.00 per household in North Yorkshire, while spending over £2,000 a year on foreign trips. Put another way, sixty eight homes in North Yorkshire will have increased taxation, to pay for the Chief Constable’s annual alumni reunions.

On this basis, I would be grateful if you would:

Chief Constable Winward

Prohibit any further attendance at FBINAA events at the taxpayers’ expense. This will still leave Chief Constable Winward free to attend these events at her own expense.

Prohibit any further settlement of Chief Constable Winward’s FBINAA membership on the grounds that this is private expenditure which has no relevance to Chief Constable Winward’s duties.

Ask Chief Constable Winward to refund the £17.99 membership fee for the FBI National Academy Alumni and the costs of her attendance at the FBI National Academy Alumni Conference including travel. (This is entirely consistent with the action you took against Chief Constable Maxwell and Deputy Chief Constable Briggs, who received a£100,000 in training allowances that they were not able to justify).

Order Chief Constable Winward to put the duty time spent on the FBI National Academy Alumni Conference as leave and deduct it from her 2019 holiday allowance.

Reform the governance over training for Chief Officers to prevent any future abuses. Specifically, please can ensure that a formal training plan for all Chief Officers, which specifies their training needs. This will ensure that all training courses booked are valid and address the training needs identified in the training plan. It will also secure tight financial control over training, that value for money is obtained and that training is relevant to the needs of policing in North Yorkshire.

Direct that henceforth all training courses are paid for through the training budget and are subject to the governance and supervision, not slipped through via personal expenses claims. These measures are normal in large organisations in the public sector and there is no reason why they cannot be adopted in North Yorkshire Police, to uphold financial control over training, value for money and efficiency generally.

Chief Constable Madgwick (Retired)

Write to Chief Constable Madgwick (Retired) and ask him to refund the payments he received from North Yorkshire Police for his charitable work with the Special Olympics GB and ask him to submit his expenses to the SOGB, which is the appropriate body to fund them. (This is entirely consistent with the action you took against Chief Constable Maxwell and Deputy Chief Constable Briggs, who received a£100,000 in training allowances that they were not able to justify).

I believe that only the highest standards of financial control, openness and accountability are acceptable over public funds. Secrecy around the Chief Constable’s expenses and how much time she spends on leave each year are unacceptable.

I have written to Chief Constable Winward on this matter, but she has chosen not to comment as yet.

I hope this is helpful and will lead to an improvement in financial control in North Yorkshire Police.

I look forward to your response in due course, which I would wish to publish.

Kind regards,

Tim Hicks

]]>“Serious Violation of SBC’s New Local Plan”http://nyenquirer.uk/serious-violation-of-sbcs-new-local-plan/
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:15:06 +0000http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=21091“Serious Violation of SBC’s New Local Plan”

A Letter to the Editor by JOHN MOOK of Filey, drawing attention to a very disturbing Planning Application now under deep scrutiny.

~~~~~

Dear North Yorks Enquirer,

I would like to bring to the attention of the Scarborough Borough residents who live near one of the 35 New Local Plan Housing Allocation sites, these are sites that have been assessed and deemed appropriate for future housing development within the SBC Local Plan 2011-2032.

What has happened at Housing Allocation 24 (HA24)? This letter highlights some of the issues – but not all.

There are serious questions of transparency, good governance and questionable practices undertaken by officers and members concerning planned developments in Filey and across the Borough. This concerns the planning permission for housing in the town of Filey, with specific reference to the proposed development of land off Church Cliff Drive (Housing Allocation Site HA24). The McCarthy & Stone proposed retirement living apartments block and bungalows.

Filey Town Council and over 100 residents around the proposed site objected to the proposal and the way the planning officers mis-assessed the Housing Land Selection Methodology & Assessment (HLSMA). The HLSMA document outlines the requirements for acceptable development on the proposed site and is deemed a material consideration document in the methodology and process of planning. Residents used outside qualified professionals to compile reports and assess the HLSMA and other related documents and policies and set up a website to collate information at www.siteha23filey.weebly.com.

The arguments against the proposal were substantial but these have been ignored by Scarborough Council Forward Planning Officers and some Councillors as they voted 7 to 5 in favour of development (plus 2 abstentions) on 04/10/2018. Consequently there is the prospect of 59 dwellings being built on the site almost 100% over development and a considerable number of planning conditions have still not been met.

The Officers and some members failed to recognise that the Government Inspector Mr William Fieldhouse verbally stated at the New Local Plan examination in public that the indicative yield of 30 dwellings was appropriate and justified for this site as stated in the Housing Land Selection Methodology Assessment (HLSMA)/ Allocation Statement. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘Indicative’ as expressing a simple statement of fact. The statement of fact here is 30 dwellings should mean 30 dwellings. The proposal accepted by the Planning Committee (4.10.2018) was for 59 dwellings.

In the HLSMA. Ref: Question 13 – Historic Environment. The assessment gives 3 alternatives for acceptable development then States “Subject to the above requirements”. Single storey development on the site is a requirement as verbally specified by the Government Inspector and in the HLSMA assessment by SBC’s Conservation Officer. The proposal accepted by the Planning Committee (4.10.2018) was for a two storey apartment block of 39 dwellings plus 20 bungalows to be constructed.

The decision (4.10.2018) does not comply with the HLSMA/Allocation Statement for this site within the Local Plan and undermines the core policies, principles and content of the Local Plan as presented to the planning and development committee on 4th October 2018 by Borough Councillor Mike Cockerill.

Cllr Cockerill states:

“To accept this planning application after much public consultation will go against the allocation statement for site HA24 and will be most dangerous for the very future and credibility for the whole of the new local plan and would be a serious violation to the new local plan, if this scheme is approved I would suggest that a huge hole will be driven through the local plan allowing developers to build what they want.”

At the end of the Planning & Development Committee meeting on the 4th October 2018 in reference to relevant Planning Applications 17/02734/FL and 18/01504/FL, one Councillor was heard saying “SHAME ON YOU!” to the committee members who had voted in favour of development.

The frustration and growing hostility towards decision makers and the Officers employed by the Council is becoming more evident amongst residents. The vote of no-confidence by Whitby and Filey Town Councils was a clear recognition that there are fundamental problems. Residents are being treated in a shameful and disrespectful manner and being failed by their representatives and council officers. Perhaps it is time for residents to make them accountable rather than being ignored?

Members and Planning Officers are not complying with Local Government Ethical Standards, Codes of Planning Practice and The Royal Town Planning Institute (R.T.P.I.) Codes of Conduct.

This has led to official complaints sent to Scarborough Borough Council and their Standards Committee and The Royal Town Planning Institute (R.T.P.I.).

It is at this stage that residents feel they should make reference to the letter to the editor of the North Yorks Enquirer from Mr Bob Roberts, entitled “Change” on the 12th February 2017 .

“When the voters will undoubtedly hold this council to account for all the miscalculations, the poor decision making and the obnoxious arrogance…”

“Who seem to manipulate the system to their own advantage, ignoring established protocols and laws…”

an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on an Opposition initiative to take heed of business people’s objections to the apparent ‘greasing of the wheels’ of the Yorkshire Coast Destination Business Improvement District (DBID).

~~~~~

Recent newspaper reports have been telling us about the widespread disquiet – especially in Whitby – surrounding the Yorkshire Coast D-BID. Suspicion runs high that the ballot process by which the D-BID has been ratified was conducted either incompetently – or with a predetermined bias.

A Business Improvement District (BID) is a defined area within which businesses whose business rates exceed £12K are required to pay an additional tax (or levy) in order to fund projects within the district’s boundaries. A Destination BID directs its efforts to the enhancement of tourism in the specified area.

The process of determining whether or not there was a genuine demand on the part of businesses was resolved by a formal ballot, the results of which are set out as follows:

Questions hang over several aspects of the poll, which was conducted by Scarborough & Whitby Returning Officer, Mr Jim DILLON (out-going CEO of Scarborough Borough Council):

Who determined which of the businesses rated above the £12K threshold were provided with information about the D-BID?

Who determined which of the businesses rated above the £12K threshold were provided with ballot papers? Many were not. (Turn-out was 29.17% – less than three out of every ten. The full list of eligible business can be downloaded here).

Why did some ballot papers not reach eligible businesses until after the ballot?

Why were some business proprietors who pay business rates for a number of distinct and separate properties provided with only one ballot paper?

Granted that local authorities also own qualifying properties, who determined that each individual local authority property was entitled to its own individual vote?

Should SBC have been entitled to vote at all – since, as the collecting authority, it has a pecuniary interest in a positive outcome to the ballot – a conflicted interest?

Granted that many of SBC’s 32 qualified properties are unoccupied (car parks, toilets, play parks, etc), who determined how those votes should be cast – and on what authority?

The best guess on this last point seems to be that the former Portfolio Holder for Tourism, Councillor Andrew JENKINSON [Con.] is the likely ‘culprit’ – or the chosen scapegoat? (Cllr JENKINSON is reputed to be standing down). Or is this just another instance of the tail wagging the dog?

Councillor Andrew Jenkinson [Con.]

I can now report that a cross-party group of SBC Councillors has served a Requisition on Mayor Joe PLANT [Con.] to convene an Extraordinary Meeting for the purpose of asking the Council to dissociate itself from this (and any future) D-BID for a period of 5 years:

It should be remembered that, like any other Motion, this may be subject to amendments if it does reach the Chamber.

Bearing in mind that the last two attempts to Requisition an Extraordinary Meeting were blocked by the CEO, in breach of the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, some observers are sceptical that the present attempt will be convened in accordance with the law.

One might, perhaps, anticipate that Monitoring Officer Mrs Lisa DIXON may intervene, claiming that it is not possible to arrange the Extraordinary Meeting before the onset of Purdah on 20th March 2019, thereby delaying the Meeting until after the 2nd May 2019 local elections (and, indeed, until after the ‘new’ Council has been formally constituted on 5th May 2019). This could be construed as a play for time during which Secretary of State the Rt.Hon. James BROKENSHIRE MP [Con.] can be expected to hand down a ruling on the formal objection lodged by a group of Whitby businesses. In this sense, SBC could be said to be ‘passing the buck’ back to central government.

On the other hand, with local elections only 9 weeks away, Councillors may welcome this opportunity to demonstrate to the people of the Borough – ‘live’ in the Council Chamber and on the webcast – that they are not only willing to listen – they are also willing to act.

Once elected, of course, they may return (true to form) to doing just as they please for the ensuing four years. Such is local politics.

Communities Portfolio Holder Councillor Sandra TURNER [Con.] is one of two ward Councillors for Whitby Streonshalh (the other being Councillor Rob BARNETT [Lab.]), have both attended public meetings, seeing for themselves the vehemence of the opposition to the present arrangements.

The Scarborough News has reported Councillor TURNER as stating:

“A lot of businesses have told me that they are not going to pay. I don’t think it is right that people should pay for something that they do not want.”

To be clear, many of those who attended the meetings expressed the view that they had no desire to be levied because:

the consultation process lacked transparency and appears biased. Reliable information has been scarce;

the intervention of a third party company (Mosaic Ltd, who could skim 20% administration charges off the top of the fund) was unnecessary;

the scheme covers too large a geographical area to benefit the immediate locality;

a genuinely “business driven” initiative, localised to the Whitby area, was a better proposal that only now is on the table.

In my view, and that of many, the D-BID is a form of stealth tax, empowering (and masking) a private enterprise initiative to levy (surcharge) 1.5% on top of the business rate. The potential benefits of the levy seem , at best, questionable.

Councillors committed to democracy should have no hesitation in kicking the D-BID into the long grass. Those who refuse to respond to the will of the people will face the electorate on 2nd May 2019 in the knowledge that – like Councillor Vanda INMAN [Ind.Ind.], who will be remembered for defying the will of the people over the Futurist demolition decision – they may not be forgiven.

I am sorry your e-mail did not include your name and address as the e-mail address [REDACTED] is the only contact I have.

Certainly I was not an enthusiastic supporter of the BID in Whitby and the way that the ballot was carried out I believe had many flaws.

I always maintain the point that Whitby is, in some ways, a victim of its own success and any measures taken to improve footfall and tourism in our area is unlikely to see Whitby as its primary target.

I have not received any further updates on the meeting of Whitby business people other than the coverage in some of the media but happy to put forward any points made, in particular any flaws in the electoral system.

Thank you for getting in touch and please give me some more details of your name, address and business.

Yours faithfully,

Rt Hon Robert Goodwill MPScarborough & Whitby

]]>“Wayward Winward’s Helsinki Pissupski”http://nyenquirer.uk/wayward-winwards-helsinki-pissupski/
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:30:37 +0000http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=21078In a satirical spirit, the North Yorks Enquirer presents the one-hundred-and-seventy-first in a continuing series of so-called “Photoons” – cartoons developed from digital photographs – highlighting the more amusing aspects of current affairs in North Yorkshire and far beyond.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Being an auditor and of an inquisitive nature, I occasionally take the time to review the North Yorkshire Police Chief Officers’ expenses. These are disclosed on the North Yorkshire Police website (here) to encourage open policing and the accountability of Chief Police Officers.

My review of the expenses revealed some cause for concern over Chief Constable Lisa Winward’s expenses, which are the subject of this article.

North Yorkshire Police: A force that historically has been mired in financial scandals

Successive Chief Officers from many forces have been the subject of severe criticism and misconduct allegations over expense payments for several years.

This issue was very thoroughly investigated by the Daily Mail in this article and another here.

A few quotes:

“A culture of entitlement meant some in the highest ranks believed they had a right to perks and privileges including gym membership, school fees, overseas travel, hospitality and executive cars.”

“One senior officer was given an executive car fitted with blue lights and sirens, even though not trained to use it, because emergency vehicles received tax breaks.”

“Suzette Davenport, Gloucestershire Police chief, took 64 days’ holiday in a year, posting photos of her trips on social media as frontline staff were being told job losses were on the way”

“Police chiefs were also investigated for misconduct over pay, perks, hospitality, travel and expenses, racism, sexism, dishonesty and abuses of their force’s recruitment and procurement processes.”

According to the Daily Mail, experts commissioned by the College of Policing, a professional body for police in England and Wales issued a report which found:

‘It was clear in a number of cases that there were factors specific to particular chief officers that appeared to be relevant to their behaviour. [They had] individual weaknesses that were regarded as risk factors. Some [interviewees] suggested that arrogance is a corollary of decisiveness, which is considered a desirable and necessary attribute in chief officers.’

The NYE has found similar issues with Chief Officers from North Yorkshire Police, who appear determined to defy normal standards of conduct and do whatever they please at the taxpayers’ expense:

Chief Police Officers receiving expensive cars with cross country capability for police duties, even though they were not authorised to drive them.

Chief Constable Della Canning’s £28,000 shower at Force Headquarters.

Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell receiving unaccountable tax free transfers for training and development, which he would not produce any receipts for. The combined total of the money siphoned off to Chief Constable Maxwell and his Deputy Chief Constable Briggs in a similar allowance was estimated at £100,000. I revealed this exclusively in an article for the Real Whitby website and was interviewed under caution at Fulford Road Police station by CID officers. I was then served with a letter on force headed paper from a Detective Superintendent demanding I remove the article on the basis that NYP had determined it was “misleading”. Subsequently the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner were forced to admit my allegations were correct. In the words of IPCC Commissioner Long, who investigated Deputy Chief Constable Briggs:

“It is utterly unacceptable that more than £30,000 of public funds can be handed to an officer without any means to audit how that money is used. Although the police authority stipulated what the money was to be used for, they did not check. Although Mr Briggs has retired, one would think he would want to take an opportunity to explain what he did with the money and why he claimed a further £11,750 from the public purse. I find his decision not to assist our investigation or answer our questions disappointing. It leaves us with an expenses claim that does not appear to withstand scrutiny and the actions of a senior police officer that do not appear justifiable. The police authority’s remit is to scrutinise the expenditure of a police force and hold the senior officers to account. It is utterly unacceptable therefore that more than £30,000 of public funds can be handed to an officer without any means to audit how that money is used.”

Chief Constable Tim Madgwick, whose commendable voluntary hobby was helping with the Special Olympics GB, charging the costs of this to the long suffering taxpayers of North Yorkshire. Presumably because the Special Olympics GB will not reimburse this expenditure. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but in my view if it is not reimbursable by the Special Olympics GB, then it should not be paid for by North Yorkshire

Chief Officers (including Chief Constable Winward) awarding themselves hundreds of thousands of pounds to finance legal expenses for a civil action against journalists from the North Yorks Enquirer, paid for them by the taxpayer. Articles on Operation Hyson by Neil Wilby here, here and here. Private Eye report below:

Although occasionally other Chief Officers from other forces have been criticised over expenses, (e.g. Chief Constable Sean Price of Cleveland Police, over a trip to Estonia), only North Yorkshire Police has had this sustained constant stream of scandals involving misuse of the public purse.

Chief Constable Lisa Winward’s Expenses

I have watched with great interest Chief Constable Winward’s meteoric rise from Superintendent at York in 2011 when I first met her, to Chief Constable. During this period of service she attended the FBI National Academy Leadership course at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. It is a prestigious course for potential high flyers. She was selected for attendance from many applicants in the UK.

Chief Constable Lisa Winward

However, when I reviewed Chief Constable Winward’s expenses, I was surprised to see that she has made expense claims for membership of the FBI National Academy Alumni FBINAA). According to the wikipedia definition:

An alumnus, alumna, or alumnum is a former student and most often a graduate of an educational institution (school, college, university). Alumni reunions are popular events at many institutions. They are usually organized by alumni associations and are often social occasions for fundraising. The term is used almost exclusively in the USA.

She also charged the North Yorkshire taxpayer for attendance at an FBINAA Retraining Conference in the beautiful city of Helsinki. Here I quote the Helsinki Tourist Office:

“Sitting on the edge of the Baltic, the modern, cosmopolitan city of Helsinki is the World Design Capital. The beauty of the surrounding nature blends seamlessly with high-tech achievements and contemporary trends. Walking tours of the city centre show layers of history, while modern architecture and cutting-edge style stake the city’s claim to the future. Choose Helsinki during its endless summer days or get adventurous on crisp, snowy winter nights.”

I have been an accountant since 1980 and in the course of my career I have reviewed thousands of expense claims, including those from senior management in many sectors of the economy. I have never, ever seen or heard of anyone submitting an expenses claim for membership of an Alumni club or travel to an Alumni event. This is because these activities are personal and would not normally be put through as an expense, in my experience.

Obviously this caused me concern, because it appears to me to be potentially a misuse of public finds:

Membership of an Alumni is a private matter. There are British Police Staff Associations which Police Officers are expected to be members of, but the FBI Alumni is not one of them. This Alumni membership fee is clearly personal expenditure to do with Chief Constable Winward’s choice of who she retains personal contact with.

If the official visit to Helsinki was a training course, it would have been paid directly through the training budget in the normal way – not put through as personal expenses, which excluded this expenditure from the normal oversight and governance over training.

Chief Constable Winward will not provide any evidence of any training she received or a copy of the training programme. I did manage to find this FBINAA Schedule of a five day FBINAA Alumni conference at Phoenix, Arizona, which includes golf, yoga, receptions, social events, five kilometre fun run/walk, Sedona Red Rocks tour, church service, shooting competition, motorcycle rides, railroad tour, sponsor lunch and youth wrap play (whatever that is). I have no doubt that some of the time spent at Helsinki was attending lectures on policing and that the quality of the presentations was high. However, I question the relevance of training from the FBI on pan European issues for a Chief Constable of a force primarily dealing with rural crime. In addition, Chief Constable Winward is eligible to attend training from the College of Policing, the Police Staff College at Bramshill and the National Police Chiefs Council, which is deemed to be perfectly adequate for every other Chief Officer in the UK and would seem to offer better value for money and be more relevant.

From the available information, on the basis that two days would be spent travelling, it appears that the conference only lasted two days or so. The policing value and value for money of this four day event is obviously questionable, when it requires two days to travel there and back.

Normally secondments to foreign police forces or liaison visits to other forces are well publicised on the NYP website. Chief Constable Winward’s training at Quantico was extensively covered on social media and on the NYP website at the time. However, no mention of the Helsinki excursion has been made on the websites of North Yorkshire Police or the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire. It appears to have been treated as a confidential, private matter and withheld from the public.

The failure to issue any official communication on this conference indicates it was a personal visit, not an official duty.

It appears from Chief Constable Winward’s expenses to have taken place over a weekend Saturday the 22nd of September 2018 to Tuesday the 25th of September 2018. Highly unusual for a training course to take place over the weekend and indicative that some of the course was private leisure time.

The cost to the North Yorkshire taxpayer of the Chief Constable’s Helsinki weekend

Chief Constable Winward’s Salary is £142,689 (Source here). Using this information I calculate the total cost to the North Yorkshire taxpayer (on the basis that Chief Constable Winward did not take leave to cover her time in Helsinki) is:

Subscription£

04.09.2017 FBI Alumni membership 17.99

Costs of Conference in Helsinki

09.07.2018 FBI Alumni conference Registration Fee 230.24

22.9.2018 Air fare to Helsinki 263.69

22.09.2018 Hotel accommodation 247.15

25.09.2018 Parking Bradford International Airport 37.50

Cost of Chief Constable’s time

Attendance at conference (2 days*1 at £631.37 per day*2) 1,262.74

Total estimated cost to the North Yorkshire taxpayer: £2,059.31

*1 – Chief Constable Winward has not released any information on the Alumni conference, so this is based on the timings in her expense claim above. Making allowance that two days were on the weekend.

*2 – £142,000 / 226 average working days = £631.37.

The Alumni Conference is an annual event, so there is a risk that the Chief Constable intends to charge this expenditure every year.

Chief Constable Winward’s response

I wrote to Chief Constable Winward raising my concerns and asking her how she could justify this and if she would be paying the money back. Needless to say I received no response. In my opinion this indicates:

A refusal by Chief Constable Winward to be held accountable, or to justify her actions.

Determination to conceal from the public the facts surrounding this expenditure.

Complete confidence that she will not be confronted over this use of police funds by the Finance Department, or the Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner, who is the official responsible for holding her to account. Or, to put it another way, a classic example of an unhealthy culture of impunity. This was very nicely summed up by the disgraced former Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell who allegedly stated that he was Chief Constable and could do what he wanted. I don’t think anything has changed.

On the basis of the ascertainable facts, set out above – and subject to any explanation Chief Constable Winward may subsequently wish to provide – this appears to me to be an inappropriate use of public funds for the personal benefit of the Chief Constable.

If so, then this is also indicative of a failure of financial control and a culture of deference to Chief Officers within the NYP finance department, which did not oppose Chief Police Officers over misuse of public funds.

I have had, on a number of occasions in my career in finance, confrontations with senior management over excessive expense claims. The most famous of these was when I worked in the finance department at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBoS), which is covered in this extract from an article about my case from the Sunday Times, by award winning financial journalist Ian Fraser.

My point is that a finance department must uphold standards of financial control. Even if it makes it unpopular, or brings it into conflict with senior management/Chief Police Officers. It appears that in North Yorkshire Police, this does not happen and that it is an ongoing and intractable problem.

The issue for the North Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel

Only the highest standards of financial control, openness and accountability are acceptable over public funds.

The North Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel recently rejected an application by Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Julia Mulligan and Deputy Chief Constable Phil Cain to increase the Council Tax by 10% to finance North Yorkshire Police. NYE report here:

“Councillor Carl Les, Chair of the Panel and Leader of North Yorkshire County Council, said:

“Rejecting the Commissioner’s proposal was not a decision taken lightly by the panel and we understand the public’s need to have a more visible policing presence in York and North Yorkshire. But an increase of more than 10 per cent is simply too much to ask people to pay without further information about how aspects of local policing will be improved.”

The panel also expressed doubts about conclusions drawn by Mrs MULLIGAN from her recent public consultation, claiming that more detail was needed to arrive at a balanced conclusion.”

Deputy Chief Constable Phil Cain

Application for extra funding rejected due to lack of detail

Mrs Gwen Swinburn recently made a complaint to the NYPCP about the conduct of the Police Fire & Crime Commissioner’s governance over finances. She is quoted in this Richmondshire Today article by Stuart Minting as having said:

“I first tried to look at the required transparency for her spending, all items over £500 are to be logged, as you do in North Yorkshire.”

“Except the commissioner hasn’t uploaded any since summer last year.”

“Then I see all the late reports to this committee, including the finance papers. It cannot be that with the budget papers of all things are late.”

I have to say that the conclusion is inescapable that there is substance behind her concerns.

The key question for the Police & Crime Panel is how it can agree to a massive increase in the community charge, when Police Fire & Crime Commissioner Mulligan cannot deliver basic financial controls over police expenditure.

I will ask the editor to publish any response from Chief Constable Winward or Chief Constable (Retired) Madgwick.

Next year’s conference is in Sofia. Very nice too. Chin chin!

]]>“Bring Me Sunshine!”http://nyenquirer.uk/bring-me-sunshine/
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:43:00 +0000http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=21083In a satirical spirit, the North Yorks Enquirer presents the one-hundred-and-seventieth in a continuing series of so-called “Photoons” – cartoons developed from digital photographs – highlighting the more amusing aspects of current affairs in North Yorkshire and far beyond.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Today’s Guest Author is Councillor Norman MURPHY [Ind.] (Northstead), who is deeply critical of the present SBC administration, for reasons already well-known to everyone in the Borough.

~~~~~

The news that the Alpamare Water Park, built with a loan of £9 million provided by Scarborough Borough Council, SBC – us – is in financial difficulty, will, sadly, come as no surprise to most Borough residents. The Alpamare financial disaster just joins a growing list of mismanaged Town Hall schemes that have, over the years, cost the rate payers a fortune.

The Open Air Theatre£5.5 million, Park & Ride £5 million, and who knows how much the demolition of the Futurist Theatre will end up costing us? Already £4.5 million has been wasted, and, with the piling problems, the final bill, for destroying this magnificent theatre, could easily be in the £10s of millions. Indeed, with a track record of financial disasters as impressive as the one SBC currently has, it could be argued that, financial mismanagement, blatant and arrogant disregard of residents views and general incompetence are currently standard practice at SBC.

However, disastrous as the financial mismanagement of the Borough has undoubtedly been in our recent past, it is, perhaps, our imminent future that should most concern us now. Should the current administration continue its mastery over us from the Town Hall “Ivory Tower” it seems highly likely that the speed at which they waste our money will only accelerate.

This is because our current rulers seem to display all the symptoms of the compulsive gambler.

They, for example, took our hard earned money to the bookies and put it on a broken down nag called Park & Ride and then they were surprised, even though everyone told them it was a donkey, when it couldn’t stay the course and now looks like it will be put out of its misery by NYCC.

SBC took even more of our money to the casino called Benchmark and placed millions of our pounds on the black and were even more surprised when the ball landed on the red.

While at the amusements on the sea front, known locally as The Futurist, they are gambling huge sums of our money again, only this time it is on the piling work they hope will prevent the Town Hall from ending up on the beach. In this bet, however, we lose whichever way it goes as, if our rulers win, and the site is stabilised, they will then give it away to Flamingo Land.

So what, in view of their compulsive gambling habit, may we conclude our future might be? Well, as we all know, compulsive gamblers do not stop gabling unless there are no places for them to gamble, or nags for them to gamble on. Or they have run out of our money. With regard to finding nags to gamble our money on, it seems our current masters can find an infinite number of doomed projects on which to stake their bets. And, evidence suggests, if they manage to hold on to power, this is exactly what they will continue to do.

Indeed, the owners of the various metaphorical betting establishments SBC frequents must think it is their birthday every time a representative of the Council turns up at their counter, betting slip in hand, as they know whatever scheme the Council backs they are going to lose. The croupiers at the Benchmark casino must be equally as please as they wait to spin their loaded wheel with, obviously, concealed delight, when they see the Council place our money on a number that they know is not going to win.

The developers hovering expectantly around the Futurist amusement park site must be dizzy with expectant excitement as the last pile is driven in. Knowing, as they do, that with that last thud, their long wait for the losers from the Town Hall to clear the site, pay the contractors, and give them the deeds to the land, is nearly over.

So we may conclude that, as long as the current (losers) rulers of SBC have money in their pockets – our money – it seems fairly clear that they will keep gambling until every last penny they have picked from our pockets is gone.

Unless of course, that is, you send them in May to Gamblers Anonymous for a very long course of treatment.

]]>“Flamingo Land – Tender is the Right”http://nyenquirer.uk/flamingo-land-tender-is-the-right/
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:48:40 +0000http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=21045A Letter to the Editor from BOB ROBERTS – Scarborough businessman and, hitherto, a life-long Tory – who believes that now the Futurist Theatre is no more, it would be appropriate to re-offer the lease on the site to TENDER from interested developers.

~~~~~

Sir,

I read with interest that Flamingo Land is what is described as Scarborough Borough Council’s “preferred bidder” for the re-development of the Futurist site, as an attraction.

I wonder if you, or one of your readers, can enlighten me as what “preferred bidder” status means, and under what circumstances “preferred bidder” status is conferred? It was always my understanding that when the Council grants a lease or a concession, there was a legal requirement for the Council to conduct a tender process.

My interest is that, back in 2015, I made an application to SBC to develop an attraction and as was told most emphatically, in writing, by SBC Estates manager Mr Bryan Walker that my proposed attraction would be subject to tender. There is one subtle difference, insomuch as I was offering a service as an attraction, whereas Flamingo Land, a “preferred bidder”, offers an attraction.

I understand that some years ago the Futurist, as a building, was put out to tender, with little interest shown – hence the Tory determination (with help from the Labour Group within the Borough) to demolish the Futurist and reappraise the next steps.

Even before the decision to demolish, Flamingo Land had its sights firmly on the site, bolstered – as rumour would have it – by a clandestine private meeting over a long weekend at Flamingo Land with SBC representatives (elected and paid) to discuss the way forward. Some have suggested that donations to the Tory Party also played their part in greasing the wheels of the negotiations….who knows? Entirely plausible.

Looking at the timing, though; this “preferred bidder” status perhaps now demands closer scrutiny. In light of what may well become a burden around the necks of the Borough’s Council Tax-payers, should this “preferred bidder” status be removed now the status of the Futurist-site itself has changed? Should it again go out to tender like any other open brown-field site, albeit a spectacular site on one of the most prestigious seaside promenades in the land?

Previously, I’m certain, the main reason for the lack of interest in bidding on the Futurist was the complication – and expense – of demolishing the theatre (and all the ramifications that accompanied that same precarious undertaking. Indeed, this remains ongoing). But for a prospective leaseholder now, the main stumbling blocks have been removed and the necessary legal undertakings with regards to the structural integrity of the immediate surroundings is now covered by Wilmott Dixon in association with SBC.

In short, with the building gone, the site may well become a subject of far greater interest to other developers. It may even attract a bidder promising a higher revenue (in terms of the sale of the lease and the long term rental revenue) than the Flamingo Land proposal (quite aside from those donations to the Tory party, that is).

We have, in around 90 days, local elections. There is certainly not enough time for SBC to push through any deal with Flamingo Land and, of course an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is now required, which may well take some considerable time. If we had a change in the make up of the Council – which I think and hope is entirely likely – we may find the Council taking a different perspective on what goes on the site.

For me, I’m indifferent about what goes on the site – just so long as it’s not another Olympia type of building offering little by way of architectural merit nor attraction to tourists. It was hailed by Eileen Bosomworth in its day, but is now an eyesore. It’s to be hoped that whatever goes on the Futurist-site doesn’t replicate the Olympia.

Quite possibly, offering the Futurist-site to one “preferred bidder” only – one which already gives the appearance of having the lease in the bag, by virtue of donations and/or cultivated relationships with Councillors – is no longer procedurally correct.

Surely, the site should be re-tendered – perhaps even by way of a public competition – as to what we could have, what we should have and what we deserve, given the failure of SBC to master the art of getting a good deal for the Council Tax-payer.

Scrutiny – or lack of it – is the key word throughout everything the Council has done in recent years, with decisions being pushed through on a nod and wink, with very little to no scrutiny. That must end.

The goal should be to end the low-paid job market, where the labour requirement is almost entirely reliant on students, and is seasonal. This should not be the backbone of any town’s economy. Time for a strategic emphasis-shift from tourism to industry, at least on an equal basis.